Could anyone shed some light on this question of "doesn't look like CMA" for me? I expect all unarmed fighting methods to more or less converge, but surely there's some criteria that "makes" it CMA?

11/24/2011 9:00pm,

It is Fake

There are entire threads on this bullshit, please search one out. It is an excuse used by so called traditionalists who have rarely if ever truly sparred full contact.

Full doesn't equal hard.

11/24/2011 9:12pm,

W. Rabbit

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARPAChief

Could anyone shed some light on this question of "doesn't look like CMA" for me? I expect all unarmed fighting methods to more or less converge, but surely there's some criteria that "makes" it CMA?

The training methods more or less make it CMA imho, but CMAs often focus on balancing hard/soft, fighting/healing, explosive strength as well as yielding. That's also the problem with lots of schools...they neglect the hard completely in their quest for the soft, etc. Hung ga is a so-called "external style" ie known for being hard but also cultivating "soft" internal power over time.

The problem starts because many people associate what they see in the movies with what kung fu really should be, and all kung fu really is is good old fashioned scrapping in some nice, elegant packages handed down throughout the years. In the old days, kung fu masters didn't win by knowing a hundred techniques, they won because they had mastered a handful of techniques that would just crush their opponents.

Kung fu cinema has (unintentionally) made CMA suffer because nowadays if it doesn't look like in the movies, it's "not kung fu" but anyone with a brain can figure out punching can be kung fu, kicking can be kung fu...it doesn't have to be anything special.